Thank you for issue 5

[cincygreg]

Well, here it is...

January 23, 2007
No smoke break for vets, bowlers
BY LIZ LONG | [email protected]

COLUMBUS - The state Health Department isn't relaxing Ohio's new smoking ban, despite last-minute lobbying by veterans and bowling center owners.

Final changes are expected to be filed with the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review, a 10-member state legislative committee that reviews new and amended rules, as early as this week.

Voters passed the statewide ban, which prohibits smoking in any "public place" or "place of employment," Nov. 7.

While the state Health Department and its 30-member advisory committee have been working through the rule-making process, businesses have been asked to comply with the law since Dec. 7, although it is not being enforced.

Mandy Burkett of the state Health Department said the newest changes from the original draft rules include:

There is no set distance requirement from the entrance to where smoking is permitted, as long as smoke is not entering the building. It was originally proposed to set a distance requirement from the entrance of a "public place" to where smokers can smoke.

Ashtrays can be stored by businesses and kept outside for disposal purposes. The original proposal required ashtrays be removed from buildings.

Local health departments will be the primary designee to enforce complaints. In the original proposal, it was unclear who would take complaints and enforce the law.

No specific rule on where signs should be posted or how big they should be was decided. Earlier proposals included a set sign size, design and place where the sign should be posted at the entrance of a "public place" or place of employment. The sign bans smoking and gives the state Health Department number to report violations. Among the committee members saying his concerns were not fully addressed in the latest draft was William Seagraves, state commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of Ohio.

Seagraves asked that VFW clubs be allowed to designate a smoking room for veterans in the rules, instead of requiring veterans to go outside and smoke.

Under the new law, any private club that has employees must adhere to the smoking ban.

"It is not right to send our veterans out into the cold for a cigarette," he said. "They earned that right."

But Shelly Kiser, a spokeswoman for the American Lung Association and the granddaughter of an 85-year-old World War II veteran, said the rules should apply to VFW clubs. "My grandfather cannot currently go to VFW clubs, because smoking affects his heart condition," Kiser said. "Our research shows smoking rooms don't protect nonsmokers."

Other concerns were raised about how violations and enforcement would be handled. David Corey, a lobbyist for the Bowling Centers Association of Ohio, said local health departments should not be able to hire third parties, such as off-duty police, to enforce the law. "We weren't going to create smoking police," Corey said. "But that is the perception you are giving us based on these rules."

Lance Himes of the state Health Department said violations will mainly be complaint-driven and dealt with by local health departments.

Jacob Evans, a lobbyist with the Ohio Licensed Beverage Association, said the main issues are getting rid of smoke, putting up signs and getting rid of ashtrays.

"We are not out to get people," he said. "We just want to make sure people aren't smoking indoors."

Keith Krinn, public health administrator for the Columbus Health Department, said one of the biggest problems with the rule is no-set-distance requirement.

"Not having a distance requirement creates a gauntlet of smoke that you have to go through before going through the door," he said.

Socrates Tuch, an attorney with the state Health Department, said it is hard to accommodate every concern, and many violations will have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

Everyone duck, things are gonna start flying in here [img]eek.gif[/img]

[travelinman]

Originally posted by cincygreg:

As for the police having to get involved, if you light up in a place where you know you are not allowed to smoke you are pretty much asking for some kind of trouble. Anyone who doesnt just snuff it out and refuses to comply is putting the owners/managers or whoever is in charge in a difficult possition. You are in reality forcing them to call the police on you since you knew you werent allowed to smoke and not only did you do so anyway, you continued to do so after you were asked to stop.

Maybe that is going too far, but why would you light up where you know you are not allowed to do so?

Why would you put someone in a spot where they have to make that decision?
Why force them to face fines?

You arent snubbing your nose at the law, you are snubbing your nose at those who have to follow it or face punishmnts of their own. Forced with facing fines of their own that escalate rapidly with each offense, many buisness owners probably wont hesitate to much in making that call.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Don't you know anything about history?

I don't smoke, but I think I have every right to smoke in a public place. If things like this ban continue, I beleive it's every American's duty to party like it's 1773.

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." -- Samuel Adams

[cincygreg]

I don't smoke, but I think I have every right to smoke in a public place. If things like this ban continue, I beleive it's every American's duty to party like it's 1773.

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." -- Samuel Adams[/QB][/QUOTE]

He does make a tasty brew!

Maybe all the smokers should get together and hold a smoke in. All confined to an indoor arena, let them chain smoke an unlimited amount of cigarettes until they are forced to change the law.
Just think of it. Thousands of smokers nailing a few packs of nails into their coffins daily for as long as it takes.

That'll show 'em [img]graemlins/hmmm.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/sure.gif[/img]

I Wonder about partially outdoor areas like riverbend and river downs?


Actually, it's a futile fight. But, this being America, go for it. Knock yourselves out!

[travelinman]

Greg,

The problem with America is there are too many Americans who, (no offence) like you don?t have a fucking clue what?s going on.

[Lew]

One thing I noted about the smoking issue was how, at least among people I know, it didn't line up along ideological lines as I would have originally suspected. You would think that conservatives would be against banning smoking, and that liberals would be for it. With most of my crowd, anyway, ideology had nothing to do with it, it all came down to if they were or had been a smoker. My most leftist friend (who, surprisingly, is a professor at a university) believes that the government has more important things to worry about than prevening a group of smokers from patronizing a business that wants to cater to smokers (of course, she used to smoke herself). I have a couple of wing-nut friends who were borderline ecstatic when the ban passed (they don't smoke, but they grew up in homes that did and they absolutely abhor the smell of it).

[cincygreg]

Actually, Trav, I do but I understand your point.Still, if the partial ban had passed instead, we wouldnt even be discussing this.

Hey look, it's reached accorss the river now...

NKU Goes Smoke Free

POSTED: 7:28 pm EST January 25, 2007
UPDATED: 7:49 pm EST January 25, 2007

HIGHLAND HEIGHTS, Ky. -- Northern Kentucky University is a rarity in a state known for producing tobacco. The school has gone smoke free indoors and outdoors.
Second-year law student Joe Mills says the campus is compact and it was hard to get around without breathing smoke.
The new policy covers more than 99 percent of the campus. It permits smoking only in lightly populated areas on campus and in six designated smoking areas next to buildings. It also bars the sale, free distribution and advertising of tobacco products on campus.

University president James Votruba says the commonwealth is a poster child for health problems related to smoking.

[Lew]

Yeah and if we're gonna play that game, for all the harm that smoking has caused over the years (according to those truth.com commercials, I think cigarettes kill something like 2 million people per day), I think it's safe to say that alcohol has caused just a little more damage. I mean, how many spouses have been battered because of smoking? How many families torn apart? How many wrecks have been cause because of smoking drivers?

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not calling for the illegalization of alcohol. But I find it odd that one industry whose product (admittedly) is unhealthy for people and has caused a lot of harm is basically being legislated out of existence, while another product that is much, much worse and has caused far more damage.....I mean, the Milwaukee BREWERS play in MILLER PARK.

[cincygreg]

As it is no longer the "Winston Cup" yet there are still cars sponsored by major breweries LOL!

Without beer advertising though, sports would lose a major contributer as far as finances go.

[Raven Soul]

It's funny, I work at Cincinnati Children's Hospital, and I find it funny that everyone saw that they were going smoke free anyway, regardless of the vote are now bitching they can't smoke because of the voters.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ January 27, 2007 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Sin-Jin Smyth ]</font>

[travelinman]

?Fat police? put children on abuse list
Sarah-Kate Templeton, Health Correspondent


SOCIAL workers are placing obese children on the child protection register alongside victims thought to be at risk of sexual or physical abuse.

In extreme cases children have been placed in foster care because their parents have contributed to the health problems of their offspring by failing to respond to medical advice.

The intervention of social services in what was previously regarded as a private matter is likely to raise concerns about the emergence of the ?fat police?.

Some doctors even advocate taking legal action against parents for illtreating their children by feeding them so much that they develop health problems.

Dr Russell Viner, a consultant paediatrician at Great Ormond Street and University College London hospitals, said: ?In my practice, I can think of about 10 or 15 cases in which child protection action has been taken because of obesity. We now constantly get letters from social workers about child protection due to childhood obesity.?

source

So officer Jump, did you join Cincinnati's finest to arrest parents as they walk out of Mickey D's with their little butter balls in tow? What's next forced exercise?

Maybe you will have to start writing tickets at the Taste if you see anyone overeating.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ January 28, 2007 06:50 AM: Message edited by: travelinman ]</font>